ProvLiqs’ reliance on ARITA categories challenged

Despite opposition Andrew Sallway and Duncan Clubb have again secured remuneration approval for work performed on the Crown Group Holdings (CGH), taking total fees green lighted to $12,221,746.50 over three years.

“Given the way the material has been presented, it is not straightforward to work out, with any ease, precisely what was done and by whom in relation to particular activities.” Justice Peter Brereton.

The application, the fourth the pair has brought since being appointed provisional liquidators of CGH and 37 wholly-owned subsidiaries three years ago, was objected to by CGH shareholder Paul Sathio and his company PNR International Pty Ltd.

A badminton prodigy, Indonesian-born Sathio is better known down under for his real estate investment chops and spectacular fall out with CGH co-founder Iwan Sunito.

As the two men couldn’t agree on a way to dissolve their relationship Sallway and Clubb were appointed ProvLiqs in August 2023 in circumstances where the businesses within the Group are solvent, asset rich and beset with complex, inter-company lending arrangements.

According to Justice Peter Brereton in PNR International Pty Ltd v CII Group Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 972 Sathio, who had initiated the appointment of Sallway and Clubb, based his opposition to their latest fee claims on their decision to rely on the ARITA categories when composing their remuneration report.

Imagine the grounds of opposition he would have had at his disposal if they hadn’t!

“The plaintiffs contend that while the Provisional Liquidators have adopted the conventional course of using the ARITA categories in their remuneration report, that has the effect of obfuscating the ready identification of time spent on specific issues,” the judge said.

“They contend that it is not possible to identify whether work has been performed by a person of appropriate seniority (with the risk of work being undertaken by a person of unnecessarily high seniority) or precisely what work has been performed, or whether the work was necessary.”

The judgment also reveals that his honour had an unsuccessful crack at using the remuneration report entries to arrive at the same conclusions as Sallway and Clubb.

“Given the way the material has been presented, it is not straightforward to work out, with any ease, precisely what was done and by whom in relation to particular activities,” he said.

“It is possible, for example, by searches to gather information about who worked on a particular tax return and how long they spent on the exercise, but it is not possible to piece together every step of that work.”

The judge expressing some mild reservations was however as close as Sathio came to getting the fees reduced, with Justice Brereton conceding that Sallway had “given appropriate consideration as to how accounting and reporting functions are to be undertaken in a manner that is both fit for purpose and proportional in relation to the costs incurred, avoiding wasteful or unnecessary costs”.

The latest amounts sought cover the period January 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025 and comprise $2,482,181 plus GST for the roles as provisional liquidators of the 38 entities within the CGH Group and $240,389.50 for the work they performed as receivers of three CGH entities.

Now that the judge has shot down objections based on the use of ARITA-approved remuneration categories, Justice Brereton’s observation that “there remains much to do”, might see Sathio’s lawyers get more creative the next time the BDO duo seek the court’s imprimatur.